











































134 Letters, Announcements, &c. 
In a former paper on the birds of the Pelew Islands (P. Z.S. 
1868, pp. 116, 117), Drs. Hartlaub and Finsch had already 
asserted in positive terms that the Philippines were inhabited 
by two distinct species of Artamus. On this assertion I 
ventured some remarks in my memoir on the birds of the 
Philippine archipelago (Tr. Z. 8S. ix. p. 174). But as Dr. 
Finsch, in his more recent paper (/.c.), still identifies the 
Pelew form with A. leucorhynchus of the Philippines, while 
treating the Pelew bird as a species distinct from the Artamus 
of the Sunda Islands, it becomes necessary to review the 
grounds on which this identification rests. It is not pri- 
marily a question of correct title that has to be decided, but 
one of fact. Is there any trustworthy evidence of the Philip- 
pines possessing two species of Artamus, the one identical 
with the species found in the Sunda Islands, the other with 
that confined to the Pelew Islands? As to there being two 
_ Philippine species, it is true that, while Brisson described and 
figured (Ornithologia, 11. p. 180, t. xviii. f. 2) a species of the 
genus from a specimen obtained in the vicinity of Manilla, 
preserved in Aubrey’s cabinet, Sonnerat again separately de- 
scribed and figured a species observed by him in the Philippines 
(Voy. N. Guin. p. 55, t. 25). Sonnerat mentions that his 
species was the one described by Buffon (Hist. Nat. 1. p. 310) 
under the title of Pie-griéche des Philippines. Sonnerat’s erro- 
neous quotation of the title used by Buffon need not now have 
been alluded to, were it not that Buffon really employed as the 
title part of the native name given by Brisson, and called it 
le Langraien, and nowhere does Buffon use the title attri- 
buted by Sonnerat. Buffon’s account (for it cannot be called 
a description) is taken from Brisson ; and he quotes the volume 
and page of the ‘Ornithologia.’ As Sonnerat identified his 
species with that of Buffon, and as Buffon manifestly refers 
to Brisson’s species, we may assume that the same species was 
understood by all three authors. Gmelin (S. N. 1. p. 305), 
by adopting the Linnean title. for Brisson’s species, with 
which he associated that of Buffon, and by bestowing (E. c. 
p- 307) a separate title on Sonnerat’s bird, was the first author 
who suggested the idea of the Philippines (or rather the vici- 
nity of Manilla) being inhabited by two distinct species of 


